An ill wind blows from wind turbines

Almost all predictions about the expansion and cost of German wind turbines and solar panels have turned out to be wrong – at least by a factor of two, sometimes by a factor of five. –Daniel Wentzel, Die Welt, 20 October 2012

When Germany’s power grid operator announced the exact amount of next year’s green energy levy on Monday, it came as a shock to the country. The cost burden for consumers and industry have reached a “barely tolerable level that threatens the de-industrialization of Germany”, outraged business organisations said. Since then politicians, business representatives and green energy supporters have been arguing about who is to blame for the “electricity price hammer”. After all, did not Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) promise that green energy subsidies would not be more than 3.6 cents per kilowatt hour? Now, however, German citizens have to support renewable energy by more than EUR 20 billion – instead of 14 billion Euros. How could Merkel be so wrong? –Daniel Wentzel, Die Welt, 20 October 2012

Cheaper natural gas prices in the U.S. could spell trouble for European chemical companies, as their rivals across the Atlantic benefit from lower costs. The U.S. shale-gas revolution has made natural gas roughly three times cheaper there than in Europe, and the U.S. chemical industry is reaping the benefits through cheaper energy and feedstock, leaving the European sector under the threat of increased competition. –Alessandro Torello, The Wall Street Journal, 24 October 2012

Peter Lilley MP has been appointed to the energy and climate change select committee, provoking an angry response from climate change campaigners. “The addition of climate change sceptic and oil company director Peter Lilley to the energy and climate change select committee is part of a growing picture,” said Greenpeace policy director Joss Garman. “With Owen Paterson as environment secretary and anti-wind campaigner John Hayes now energy minister, you’d be forgiven for thinking the Tories are gearing up to assault the Climate Change Act and increase the UK’s reliance on expensive, imported, polluting fossil fuels.” –Charles Maggs, Politics.co.uk, 25 October 2012

Last week, David Cameron chaired a meeting of the Quad — the coalition’s decision-making body — at which senior ministers attempted, and failed, to agree the precise content of the Energy Bill. According to a report in The Times, it could result in a cap on new onshore wind farm developments. –James Murray, GreenBusiness, 24 October 2012

Next month, the coalition government in Britain intends to publish its new energy bill. The coalition partners, however, are increasingly at odds over the direction of the United Kingdom’s energy policy. In view of growing antagonism, it remains unclear whether the bill can be salvaged or whether the increasing friction will lead to its delay. It is doubtful that an energy bill fudge would actually be workable, let alone economically viable. There is a growing risk that it will prove to be highly unpopular as the costs of these measures are likely to further inflate energy bills artificially. In this case, the crisis of energy policy making could quickly turn into a veritable government fiasco. –Benny Peiser, Public Service Europe, 22 October 2012

Poland’s use of a veto to block the EU’s draft energy roadmap for 2050 has no legal basis, according to internal legal documents from the Council of the European Union. There is only one problem with this interpretation: It is outdated. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 194 (2) gives member states a veto over the choice between different energy sources and the general structure of energy supply. –Benny Peiser, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 25 October 2012

60 thoughts on “An ill wind blows from wind turbines”

The Big Green Lie involves Carbon forcing, renewable energy and peak oil….all proveable LIES. Bio-fuels are documented net energy losers, but the illusion of “free solar energy” from voltaics is less explored. For every ton of pure Polycrystalline Silicon required for the construction of a photovoltaic cell, you produce eight tons of Ammonium Chloridadized Silicon, a toxic carcinogen. No western manufacturer with EPA, OSHA and local land use restrictions can compete with our 401K invested Chinese slave state competition. Add to this Silicon base the necessary Boron and Phosphorus, and you now have a one-time, one-way molecular erosion system producing 1 watt/sq ft at 1.5 volts of Direct Current. This is absolutely useless for any practicle purpose, regardless of the level of subsidy. More on this analysis is provided in “Green Prince of Darkness” at Canada Free Press archive. Because of non-constant input RPM, windmills must also produce DC current, with high line and inverter loses. Remove your green goggles and none of this dogma makes sense. Find and share Truth….it is your duty as an Earthling.

“Cheaper natural gas prices in the U.S. could spell trouble for European chemical companies, as their rivals across the Atlantic benefit from lower costs.”
I don’t think Germany will be too worried. The US EPA will put paid to any price discrepancies given enough time.

Who’d have thought an intermittent, low density energy source with low kinetic energy, over-scale with all else, built far too close to peoples homes, using massive resources and many vehicle movements, extra infrastructure, expensively running on unsustainable subsidies, unpopular with people who’s houses the depreciate, and views they ruin, impacting the nature and tranquillity of the rural countryside. To stand idle at low wind speeds, and achieve nothing significant other than a political placebo for mistaken beliefs and absurd paper targets that they wont meet, would run into difficulties?

Sergei, that subsidy was supposed to be per wind and solar generated kWh, not on *all* kWh generated. With wind and solar providing less than 10% of Germany’s power, that subsidy is 0.40 euro per kWh “greenly” generated.

Depending on how one does the numbers I think that Germany will find that they have to increase the levels of subsidies even further in about 5 years as the solar panels installed pre 2007 will start to reduce their output and will need to be replaced if the output per panel is to be kept up. The earlier wind turbines will come to the end of their life also, if any of those early ones are still going by then.
For anyone to replace their existing panels/turbines the current subsidy will not be enough to be viable as they won’t have made real money yet of the original installation. Although I am sure that on paper you can make it appear so that it looks like one made a euro or two.
The good news is that the manufacturers of panels and turbines are looking forward to those times as it will mean an increase in demand, replacement and new installations. More work for installers also. With a bit of luck we can re-use the vast concrete pads the turbines stand on, so that saves, but then perhaps they won’t pass the stress tests to last another 15 years.
The landfills will become flooded with obsolete panels, old turbine magnets and blades. And possibly millions of cubic meters of concrete.
Ever increasing levels of SF6 in the air, already detectable, as a side effect of panel production and increased mining for rare earth minerals for magnet production leaving an ever increasing number of toxic tailing ponds in their wake.
Is this the green world the “greens” had in mind?

sergeiMK
Quote in article is “more than EUR 20 billion” so using your 545×10^9 kWh and the figure of the subsidy given in the link as 5.3 € cents per kWh that gives 28.8 billion €, more than 20 billion € I think. For the author more than 20 sounded better than less than 30 I should [think].

Germany have a big problem. They need two ramp ups of gas turbines each day. You have the morning peak, which solar can’t cover. You also have the evening peak, which again solar vcan’t cover. The middle of the day is fine, and energy prices approach zero due to huge amounts of solar generation. But how do you cover the cost of gas fired plants having to ramp up twice a day…

Oh yeah, the consumer pays. And then ends up blaming the “energy monopoly” (or something like that). Therefore the government has to intervene and do something..

What continually perplexes me is the disconnect that those who do not have to live with “green” energy developments in their backyards (mostly urban dwellers) are maintaining over the subsidies, which they continually claim we must support as taxpayers As Dr. Ross McKitrick an Environmental policy economist from UofG indicates, “Subsidies create short-term jobs that have to be financed by new taxes on profitable activity, which drives away long-term investment and ends up costing jobs”. Reports out of Denmark, Spain and Italy all show that renewable energy costs jobs in other sectors in large part because electrical energy costs must increase to support those subsidies, but general populace doesn’t seem to understand this and actually see the support for these kinds of schemes as favourable gov’t activity

We would all like to believe that green renewable energy is a good thing, but it is like socialism: a good idea in theory, which doesn’t work in practice and is hugely expensive to operate and is totally unreliable.

Being see to be green is very trendy amongst many politicians; slowly but surely the realisation is growing that de-industrialisation and widespread poverty as a result of green energy is possibly not such a good idea after all.

Likewise, slowly but surely, the realisation is growing that the highly flawed theory of CAGW is nothing more than the product of the fertile imagination of data manipulators like Hansen and Mann.

This is not a question of left and right, more one of being either stupid and wrong, or correct and sceptical.

Wind turbines produce AC current which needs to be convered to DC if you want the output to transit long distance without incurring a heavy transmission loss, hence the need for Germany and China where wind turbines are situated a long way from where the power is needed. Germany is intending to build wind turbines upto 150km offshore and they will be in the North but the energy is needed in the South hence Euro 37 billion just tofacilitate the pylons and cables, Joke!! Today UK wind turbines have been producing 3.8% of our electricity demand with 48% coal, 18% nuclear and 26% gas but wind has been 1% to 1.3% for most of the week. At 3.8% we could generate 30% of our electricity demand but we would never know when this would happen and for how long, gas and silo fed coal dust thin wall coal generation can operate from minimal load to full capacity as quickly as gas and has a life of 40 years compared with a wind turbine half life, complete refit at 7 and redundant at 15 or less if off shore. Germany has 13,750 1st generation wind turbines that need to be replaced but there is no money to fund it so they will be left to rot as they expire a blot on the landscape. In the UK we cant plant another 30,000 by 2015 when our coal permits expire so we are in a fix if Germany can burn coal now and is building new coal why is the UK different??

Because the leaders of all three UK political parties are beyond goofy when it comes to the subject of the future of the nation’s energy supplies.

Not surprisingly, all three leaders are career politicians who have never dirtied their hands by having to operate in the real world. Therefore, they are guided by the philosophy of: “Does it work in theory?”, as opposed to the more realistic “Does it work in practice?”

The world would become a much better place if it became legal and enforceable for all leading politicians to have spent at least 15 years living in the real world – political researcher/advisor or working in PR does not count as working in the real world.

The Germans got so many things right that it is hard to understand how they got wind economics so wrong. I don’t have a snappy answer and most are trite anyway. But it is worth looking at this deeply. That an advanced nation would place itself so completely at risk of collapsing its entire energy supply, at vast expense or not, indicates a massive failure on a technical basis. We always respected the Germans for the very thing they are failing at now. My how times have changed.

It doesn’t help that our Prime Minister has a Father in Law that has massive investments in Wind Turbine projects. We know how women are the power behind any successful male politician.
David Cameron must bite the bullet and scrap wind power energy generation. I don’t think he has the guts to do it. We have 400 years of coal reserves, massive frakkable gas sources and yet we the taxpayers are still subsidising Cameron’s Father in Law, oh! and also HM the Queen who gets a massive handout each year for owning the UK sea floor out to 12 miles so all those inefficient/expensive off shore wind farms are costing us dear. 38 Million quid to the Queen each year……..

The Big Green Lie involves Carbon forcing, renewable energy and peak oil….all proveable LIES. Bio-fuels are documented net energy losers, but the illusion of “free solar energy” from voltaics is less explored. For every ton of pure Polycrystalline Silicon required for the construction of a photovoltaic cell, you produce eight tons of Ammonium Chloridadized Silicon, a toxic carcinogen.

Faux, where, apart from your writing, will I find any evidence that “Ammonium Chloridadized Silicon” even exists, let alone being “a toxic carcinogen”?

“Arguably that the only group that has significantly benefited from “man-made” climate change has been the commercial interests in renewables whose lobbying has diverted huge public subsidies to themselves. This has enriched a few in the developed nations at the expense of both the developed nations poor (who pay disproportionately for energy) and the developed world. They have suffered as the focus has been diverted from life saving work tackling healthcare problems from climate catastrophe whatever the cause.”

“In contrast, to this robust science for CO2 greenhouse warming, the climate models also include massive “feedbacks”, which add up to 500% to the CO2 effect to make models fit past data. Their use is far from explicit and very opaque to the policy makers who use these models. The state of knowledge of these feedbacks is very immature and certainly not scientifically validated (Collins et al., 2006). Indeed there is strong evidence that feedbacks are far smaller than those used in the climate models (Spencer & Braswell 2011, Lindzen & Choi 2011, Allan 2011, Asten 2012).”

“Agreement does seem to be coalescing around the idea that whilst the certainty of man-made effects of CO2 may have been overstated, we should continue to research the potential range of climate scenarios and understand the potential risks, particularly where those risks are having a direct impact today or are reasonably short-term enough to give confidence in detailed predictions.”

You got your AC/DC mixed up….windmills & solar cells produce DC, which was the original Edison system with high line voltage/wattage drops. Constant RPM hydro and turbine generators can produce AC which is the Tesla/Westinghouse system that the whole world uses.

@PompousGit

My “Green Prince” article was written and posted at Canada Free Press in July 2010 and the Amnionium Chloridadized waste fact was in my notes and added when posted at my website. Unfortunately i did not realize then how malleable the web was, i did not always footnote which i discovered was a problem. Then when i did get more meticulous about footnoting, i found the links were deleted or suddenly paywalled. I have authored ~150 articles on a wide range of science and history subjects, researched on-line and from my 1000 pg/month “book habit”. I’ve gotten better on footnoting, and NO material is single sourced at this time, but it would be impossible to save/retrieve every fact. My opinions are clearly stated, and serve as a basis for you to expand with your own research. I was baffled by the “magic” of photocells until i discovered that this is a one-time, one-way molecular erosion which never produces even a fraction of the input energy and results in enormous amounts of production and future waste. Please, do your own research, the world in in great need of teachers of Truth.

just have a look at the saga of Stuttgart 21…nice train station (Stuttgart) cut into
a third, at an enormous cost…whatever were they thinking (or were they thinking at all….)….
Bird choppers going up all over Baden Wuerttemberg…but no real infrastructure to back
them up (though coal will probably end up carrying the load, so to speak).
(Where’s Kohl when we need him….)….

Faux, elemental silicon used in semiconductors and solar cells is made by reduction of silicon dioxide with carbon, at a very elevated temperature. The reaction is:
SiO2 + 2C => Si + 2CO
The carbon is high purity charcoal; typically from wood.

No ammonium chloridadized silicon waste will be produced by this reaction. As a chemist, I can also say that “chloridadized” is not a valid chemical term. Chlorinated, maybe.

One major production method for photovoltaic-quality high-purity silicon involves using silicon tetrachloride (SiCl4), some of which ends up in the waste stream. Maybe you meant that? However, SiCl4 will react with ammonium (NH4), and so ammonium clorosilicates such as (NH4)2SiCl6 will not exist as pure discrete compounds.

It’s possible that you might have meant to describe the waste that’s produced by the semiconductor industry in processing silicon wafers during manufacture of semiconductor devices. One of these wastes is ammonium hexafluorosilicate, with the formula (NH4)2SiF6. See here.

I see The Pompus Git called this out already. I had taken a different tack, but your response is remarkable, so I’ll remark.

Faux Science Slayer says:
October 25, 2012 at 3:56 pm

@PompousGit

My “Green Prince” article was written and posted at Canada Free Press in July 2010 and the Amnionium Chloridadized waste fact was in my notes and added when posted at my website. Unfortunately i did not realize then how malleable the web was, i did not always footnote which i discovered was a problem. Then when i did get more meticulous about footnoting, i found the links were deleted or suddenly paywalled. I have authored ~150 articles on a wide range of science and history subjects, researched on-line and from my 1000 pg/month “book habit”. I’ve gotten better on footnoting, and NO material is single sourced at this time, but it would be impossible to save/retrieve every fact. My opinions are clearly stated, and serve as a basis for you to expand with your own research. I was baffled by the “magic” of photocells until i discovered that this is a one-time, one-way molecular erosion which never produces even a fraction of the input energy and results in enormous amounts of production and future waste. Please, do your own research, the world in in great need of teachers of Truth.

This is ridiculous.

I’m happy to accept that you wrote Chloridadized in your notes, I have trouble believing you blindly accepted or didn’t ask about the chemistry to figure out what you should have written.

I’m mystified at what you mean by how “malleable the web was” – Chloridadized is simply not a word. I Googled |Ammonium “Chloridadized” Silicon| and got three hits:

“My opinions are clearly stated,” we’ve noticed, and we’ve found them wanting.

“i discovered that this is a one-time, one-way molecular erosion” you mentioned phosphorus before, I assumed you were trying to refer to doping the silicon to create the P-N junctions where photons knock off excess electrons. Or were you referring to how PV cells degrade over time. I’m not sure what happens there, but I doubt it’s “one-time, one-way molecular erosion”. Besides, it’s not really molecules, it’s more like cubic silicon crystals with defects.

“Please, do your own research, the world [is] in great need of teachers of Truth.” Yeah, I can agree with that, but you haven’t convinced me researching your teachings is anything but a wild goose chase!

I was baffled by the “magic” of photocells until i discovered that this is a one-time, one-way molecular erosion which never produces even a fraction of the input energy and results in enormous amounts of production and future waste.

1) Just like rural china skipping land lines for cellular, photo-voltaic has valid applications far from generating centers. Africa and Mid-East are good examples.
2) Where coal-fired plants exist, have differentiated fees added to a) pay for any pollution control by lovers of fossil fuels, and have lovers of renew ables pay the entire subsidy costs for their favorite.

I believe Europe needs to double down on green energy. Some people’s purpose in life is to simply serve as a warning to others. Last century it was the USSR’s and China’s turn. This century it’s Europe’s turn.

You got your AC/DC mixed up….windmills & solar cells produce DC, which was the original Edison system with high line voltage/wattage drops. Constant RPM hydro and turbine generators can produce AC which is the Tesla/Westinghouse system that the whole world uses.
…

Let’s take a broader ‘system’ view on this, shall we?

What’s needed for local ‘feed’ to the power distribution/’collection’ network (the plethora of 3-phase lines running between wind turbines back to a switch/transformer yard):

. . AC – For step up and step down transformers, switch-gear AC switches (there is
. . . . . . . no easy ‘break’ with a DC switch so HV is a little more difficult to ‘interrupt’)

I’m no fan of “wind power”, but Germany’s power grid operators are a winy bunch, and more importantly greedy bastards.They will not refrain from any propaganda if it helps them to justify the shameless prices they ask, or to further increase their already ludicrous profits they pocket – so any claims of “de-industrialization of Germany” should be take with lots of grains of salt.

Crispin in Jakarta says:
October 25, 2012 at 1:10 pm
“The Germans got so many things right that it is hard to understand how they got wind economics so wrong. I don’t have a snappy answer and most are trite anyway. But it is worth looking at this deeply. That an advanced nation would place itself so completely at risk of collapsing its entire energy supply, at vast expense or not, indicates a massive failure on a technical basis. We always respected the Germans for the very thing they are failing at now.”

Hi I’m German.
1) How we got the wind economics wrong? Simple. Most Germans know squat about economics.
2) While the populace at large is easily deluded by green and socialist pied pipers (after believing in Waldsterben and acid rain for 10 years, they went on to believe in Global Warming, etc., what’s next? Ah well, frighten them with Fukushima or with GM food, that always works) the engineers develop a plethora of solutions; from Methane synthesis, Li Ion battery buffers, to micro cogeneration systems, for instance gas powered VW motors as apartment building heaters/generators.

Don’t be confused by the wind turbines. Wind and Solar produce only 1.5 percent of German primary energy consumption. Their only significance is in moving 20 billion Euros a year from the ratepayer’s pocket to the generator’s pocket. Energetically they are OF NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER.

As for the 20billion lost/moved around a year: A very rich country can do very stupid things for a very long time.

David Wells says:
October 25, 2012 at 12:16 pm
“Germany has 13,750 1st generation wind turbines that need to be replaced but there is no money to fund it so they will be left to rot as they expire a blot on the landscape.”

In Germany the operator of wind turbines gets a permit for 20 years. It can be renewed but if the authorities decide not to, the operator has the duty of removing the structure after expiration.

BTW, they look beautiful when they’re not turning. I travelled 400 km 2 days ago; they stood like giant works of art in the mist, pointing in different directions, not moving. A blocking high… I wouldn’t mind keeping them as a reminder of a huge failure.

“In the UK we cant plant another 30,000 by 2015 when our coal permits expire so we are in a fix if Germany can burn coal now and is building new coal why is the UK different??”

Kyoto, designed by the German Bundestag, gave Germany an advantage by defining 1990 as reference point. We were able to fullfill our obligations by wrecking the ancient plants of the DDR. Under Kyoto and the EU’s 20:20:20 plan, all nations except Germany are therefore forced to de-industrialize.

outtheback says:
October 25, 2012 at 10:36 am
“Depending on how one does the numbers I think that Germany will find that they have to increase the levels of subsidies even further in about 5 years as the solar panels installed pre 2007 will start to reduce their output and will need to be replaced if the output per panel is to be kept up. ”

No; every FAILING renewable energy contraption makes our power CHEAPER. (That’s the nature of inefficient, subsidized systems – when they go, more efficient solutions can take their place)

SandyInLimousin says:
October 25, 2012 at 10:40 am
“sergeiMK
Quote in article is “more than EUR 20 billion” so using your 545×10^9 kWh and the figure of the subsidy given in the link as 5.3 € cents per kWh that gives 28.8 billion €, more than 20 billion € I think. For the author more than 20 sounded better than less than 30 I should tink.”

No, it’s only 20 bn a year. The reason for the discrepancy is probably that from the start, heavy industrial electricity users like Aluminum smelters, copper smelters, steelworks were exempt from paying the subsidy per kWh as long as they were subject to international competition. These exemptions have been expanded; the government wants to prevent factory closures.

There is a lot of unhappiness over the hike in energy prices here in Germany at the moment. Figures in the daily Zeitung this morning suggest that it will cost every household between €90 and €150 per year more for any household using 3,500 kW per year. It may not sound much, but taken with all the other rising prices and static incomes, it hurts. It’s too early to say the ‘Green Dream’ is about to unravel, but I suspect it is getting close. A few ‘brown-outs’ or real ‘blackouts’ this winter could be the tipping point.

The Gray Monk says:
October 26, 2012 at 12:47 am
“There is a lot of unhappiness over the hike in energy prices here in Germany at the moment. Figures in the daily Zeitung this morning suggest that it will cost every household between €90 and €150 per year more for any household using 3,500 kW per year.”

These numbers are of course only half of the truth. As only 1/3 of electricity is consumed directly by households, another third by the public sector/public infrastructure and the last third by industry, a better calculation is: 20 bn a year divided by 80 million inhabitants is 250 EUR/yr PER PERSON – you pay part of it via the electricity rate, part of it via taxes and part of it via increased prices.

“Renewable energy shares are plummeting: Renewable energy scare is finished….”
.
Mike, that share price graph in your link is dramatic. But it occurred to me that there has been much volatility in share prices generally over this period. So I compared it with the S&P 500 over the same period. It just happens that since the beginning of 2007 the S&P is essentially flat. In other words, the falls of those shares is dramatic when compared to the broader market. It really does look as if common sense is starting to prevail…..
Chris

The RENIXX renewables industrial index tells the same story:http://www.renewable-energy-industry.com/stocks/
At the start of 2008 it was around 1800.Today it’s at 158, a loss of over 90%.
Could this be a great buying opportunity? Not a chance!
Chris

DirkH says:
October 26, 2012 at 1:51 am
The Gray Monk says:
October 26, 2012 at 12:47 am
“These numbers are of course only half of the truth. As only 1/3 of electricity is consumed directly by households, another third by the public sector/public infrastructure and the last third by industry, a better calculation is: 20 bn a year divided by 80 million inhabitants is 250 EUR/yr PER PERSON – you pay part of it via the electricity rate, part of it via taxes and part of it via increased prices.”

I think a better calculation is to divide 20bn per year into households as their is only one electricity bill per home. That would give a more accurate PER HOUSEHOLD rate increase. I don’t know how many households their in are in Germany though.
John

Peter Miller says:
October 25, 2012 at 12:38 pmDavid Wells
Because the leaders of all three UK political parties are beyond goofy when it comes to the subject of the future of the nation’s energy supplies.
Not surprisingly, all three leaders are career politicians who have never dirtied their hands by having to operate in the real world. Therefore, they are guided by the philosophy of: “Does it work in theory?”, as opposed to the more realistic “Does it work in practice?”
———————————-
Not exactly Peter, it does not work even in theory. Wind-turbines work occasionally, erratically producing power depending with the cube of the wind speed.http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/een.html
Look at the graphics and the spikes and bear in mind you look at the output generated by 7000 wind-turbines. The massive backup for this is only first generation gas plants, so you have to burn your gas inefficiently, blot the landscape with this monuments to the green idiocy and human greed and mix it with solar in Germany.
The erratic part is the biggest problem and it grows the bigger their part is.
So the problem is, it does not even work in theory if one goes into detail.

Duh. Of course green energy will lead to de-industrialization. Standard of living is unavoidably linked to energy ROI. Green energy sources have very low (or negative) EROI, hence they result in a dramatically reduced standard of living. (Where do people think standard of living comes from? Government stimuli? Consumer spending? Only in the world of perpetual motion machines…)

The foundation of an economy consists of people making stuff out of natural resources, like food, for example. In economies that rely solely on human power, survival is about all that can be expected due to low energy ROI – there’s no excess energy to spend on stuff like education or arts or recreation or fancy homes or nice clothes. Draft animals bump things up a bit, as they offer a better return than human muscle. But that still doesn’t get us very far. Now coal and oil and natural gas are great, and have gotten us to where we are today because they have quite high energy returns on investment. One trouble we face today is that the majority of people in first-world countries now live off the excess energy – they don’t earn their living making stuff out of natural resources – so they don’t know where wealth comes from and spend their time making up counter-productive theories about economics and trying to disrupt or destroy the very activities that afford them their livelihoods.

Nuclear is the next big thing if we want to move forward. Wind and solar are taking us backward.

Why, thankyou, Pat. Perhaps you may just have persuaded me that it’s time to write another post. I’ve been busy editing a friend’s book that launches Saturday and rewriting one of my old ones. That tends to leave little time for writing just for the fun of it.